Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

4K and beyond...Pretty .Ugly

B

BRANDON JAMESON

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
San Diego, CA
We are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher.

The trickery and hoops we are having to go through to get a "pretty" look is nothing short of a nightmare.

Yes, it IS lovely to have the information we get from a large sensor, but the reality is, we are back to all the work-arounds that Hollywood masters of light, filtration and post developed to make the glamourous stars look ...glamororous!

Will we indeed have to resort to Vaseline-smeared Doris Day close-ups to get approval on-set of the current stream of leading ladies, or will we be stuck in post production, electonically dealing with the very REAL reality of seeing humans under the scrutiny of the new wave of very unforgiving sensors and projectors?

Your thoughts?
 
Yup, and now we have cameras and high end broadcast post suites that emply power windows and $$$$$ pros to work their magic on high buget productions....but for the rest of the universe not so blessed with extra deep pockets or access to such trickery?
 
Well, just to repeat myself elsewhere...

BRANDON JAMESON said:
Zodiac was shot on the Viper in FilmStream mode 4:4:4 10 bit RGB log and is regarded by many as the most beautifully shot digital capture to date.
Click to expand...
By who? I'd say Hugo won that award (literally and figuratively). There are many, many other beautiful digitally-shot features, and more coming. Not to sound like a broken record, but it's really more about the lighting and the artistry of the DP, not just the camera.

Interestingly, we are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher. The tirckery and hoops we are having to go through to get a "pretty" look is nothing short of a nightmare. Yes, it IS lovely to have the information we get from a large sensor, but the reality is, we are back to all the work-arounds that Hollywood masters of light, filtration and post developed to make the glamourous stars look ...glamororous!
Click to expand...
Not that hard, technically. One power window with defocus -- done. It takes seconds. We've been doing this in color correction for at least as long as defocus keys have been around. Seven years? Eight years? At least. I know of a show on TV where there's about three or four defocus keys going on simultaneously, whenever the stars are together in a shot. And there's at least one major (huge) cop show on where, since at least the second season, they not only defocus the star, also all his close-ups are stretched vertically about 10% to make him look thinner in the face. This is routinely done on a TV budget, taking no more than 16 hours to correct 43 minutes' worth of footage, on a $5 million network show.

It's gotten to the point where I'll routinely pop on a defocus key without the client asking, whenever there's a close-up in HD (let alone 4K), using a preset to automatically drop in the correction -- it takes about five seconds, tops. I'll show them the before-and-after, and let them decide which one to go with. Famously, on one major studio western a few years back, I offered to soften the female star's close-ups, and the producer thanked me but nixed the idea, saying, "we wanted her to deliberately look her age, worn-out in the way a real frontier woman would look in the late 1800s." So sometimes, age is a virtue.

I would note also that native Imax film is much higher res than even 5K, and I don't think Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister are doing anything special to light the actors in Dark Knight Rises. Heck, they're all-analog old school on most of that film, chemical timing. Judging by the clips, it looks bloody brilliant. I think movies like this are the last gasp for film, but let's enjoy it while we still can. If it looks good, if it tells the story, if it entertains, and it makes money, what they shoot it on is totally superfluous.
 
Some may sneer, but Magic Bullet cosmo works really well, super fast to apply, flexible, low cost, and has a good skin tone mesh overlay for accuracy. Very happy with the results i've gotten. Plan on having some footage available if/when required to show actresses that the beautiful soft ageless glow they like is and will be easily achieved.
 
And thus we learn that mayhaps the job of make-up department is rather important, after all? Hire an experienced -and proven- make-up artist and the ugliness is a non-issue. A good make-up job can make repulsive people look 'acceptable', although not necessarily beautiful.

When male actors like Jack Nicholson and sundry others can have a successful career in front of the camera, so can most female actors. Most female actors are no where near as repulsive to begin with. Although not all of them will necessarily look pretty or fresh: if a pretty face is what you are after, start by casting a pretty (and young) actress and not some old hag the executive producer fancies. About time hollywood got some new faces....

You can always lose as much resolution and details as you want in post. Or by using some filters in close-up of faces while shooting. Adding the resolution in post, however, is not possible. This is a very good 'first world problem' to have.
 
Marc's got the right post solution. (Grew up in Chatsworth btw!)
Cosmo does interesting things. You can do a chromatic blur as well through channel selections.

Honestly, I like skin texture. It's part of who a person is. A good make up artist is invaluable. Blemishes will always be blemishes unless they are painted out. An actor or actress with naturally great skin is also a great tool and something to look out for.

Skin detail is beautiful to me. I never had issues on S35. I think for many it's matter of getting used to seeing more than less.

No matter what your taste is and which side of the fence you land, it's always going to be a better solution to start out with more information and take things away. Difficult to go the other way around.
 
"Skin detail is beautiful to me". I agree Phil. There is a certain culture that wants to airbrush out all "blemishes", all signs of ageing whatsoever. That is not beauty to me.
 
Part of your job is to evaluate if your project needs to have the talent (male, femaie, animal, or artificial) look "pretty" or not!
Your tools include the image aquisition chain (camera, lenses, chip,emulsion, codec, data stream, etc), Lighting/grip dept and tools, Hair, makeup, and wardrobe departments, your interaction and planning with Post Production, and your own skills and eye!

If you ignore these, then you are not a cinematographer, you are a camera operator.. (and even then, you should know the project goal, and how to work with whatever level of these resources your project has).

And yes, HD, 2K, 4K, Imax and all other high resolution formats DO cause a different amount of work to be needed to get the PLANNED look that you want. Pretty or Ugly.....

A constant variable is flyaway hair (and fibers on wardrobe) that show in the backlight.... even on a fresh talent with naturally flawless skin...
I even remember a friend in makeup needing to shave the hair off the edges of a talent's ear for an ad agency spot... the talent was a (male)Marine Corps recruit! The format was an early Sony HD Camera (1035 lines of resolution, I think) f700

So, don't just kick these issues down the post stream.. work to solve them, and be known for getting a consistent level of look!
 
Isn't this thread the very definition of beer goggles?

Pawel, pawel, pawel... ;-)

This thread reminds me of the comment, "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone."
 
The real world is sometimes very ugly
thats why we all use framing, dof, cuts, colorgradig and more;)
 
There's a point well made Liana, and oft forgotten on a camera forum. We should remember to respect all of the departments and their disciplines, and take advantage of their expertise.

Liana said:
And thus we learn that mayhaps the job of make-up department is rather important, after all? Hire an experienced -and proven- make-up artist and the ugliness is a non-issue. A good make-up job can make repulsive people look 'acceptable', although not necessarily beautiful.

When male actors like Jack Nicholson and sundry others can have a successful career in front of the camera, so can most female actors. Most female actors are no where near as repulsive to begin with. Although not all of them will necessarily look pretty or fresh: if a pretty face is what you are after, start by casting a pretty (and young) actress and not some old hag the executive producer fancies. About time hollywood got some new faces....

You can always lose as much resolution and details as you want in post. Or by using some filters in close-up of faces while shooting. Adding the resolution in post, however, is not possible. This is a very good 'first world problem' to have.
Click to expand...
 
Well there's a lot of discussion around this and a lot of people say that the reason in their opinion Alexa is the winner - is because it's "easier" on the eye. Here's an article about the hobbit worth reading - http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
We are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher.

The trickery and hoops we are having to go through to get a "pretty" look is nothing short of a nightmare.

Yes, it IS lovely to have the information we get from a large sensor, but the reality is, we are back to all the work-arounds that Hollywood masters of light, filtration and post developed to make the glamourous stars look ...glamororous!

Will we indeed have to resort to Vaseline-smeared Doris Day close-ups to get approval on-set of the current stream of leading ladies, or will we be stuck in post production, electonically dealing with the very REAL reality of seeing humans under the scrutiny of the new wave of very unforgiving sensors and projectors?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Are these statements your own personal opinion or merely talking points that you have read on the internet?
I personally find 5k so much easier to get a "pretty" look with than any smaller format. I've never found any format to be a "nightmare", you just have to work within the limitations of the format and use lighting, filtration and post processing to get the look that you want. It's called cinematography.

So before 5k, you found it easier to make actresses look good? Just curious.
You call it workarounds, I call it cinematography. As cinematographers, it's our job to be aware of all of the "tricks of the trade" and that includes post processing.
 
Shane Kelly said:
Are these statements your own personal opinion or merely talking points that you have read on the internet?
I personally find 5k so much easier to get a "pretty" look with than any smaller format. I've never found any format to be a "nightmare", you just have to work within the limitations of the format and use lighting, filtration and post processing to get the look that you want. It's called cinematography.

So before 5k, you found it easier to make actresses look good? Just curious.
You call it workarounds, I call it cinematography. As cinematographers, it's our job to be aware of all of the "tricks of the trade" and that includes post processing.
Click to expand...

All depends on what your delivery format is - if you deliver for broadcast in 1080p it's easier - the big screen starts to be harder the more rez there is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top